On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Michael Champion wrote:
> [Putting on my W3C hat] What a working group *says* is a spec is
> not necessarily what the W3C says is a Recommendation. There's a
> round of comments by other working groups and implementers, a vote
> by the membership,
All true, and well said.
> and finally the Recommendation of the director.
And that's the problem. Note that this Personage's "undendorsed
personal notes" are not found among his personal pages, but here:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
The phrase "explain the thinking behind the specifications" says it
all. Don't say it can't happen, or won't happen, because it has
happened. Whether mellifluous blather after the fact ("work cut out")
http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/xml-dev-Sep-1999/1267.html
is casuistry or oblivious autistic projection doesn't matter as much
recognizing that there is an element of arbitrary personal fiat that
necessarily places the integrity of any specs emerging from the W3C in
jeopardy. I have enormous respect for the people in the WGs, but
subordination to papal bulls from 50000 ft is not what I would take as
either a commendable or a useful basis for, uh, Recommendations.
Arjun
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************